| Literature DB >> 21518428 |
Ngianga-Bakwin Kandala1, Tumwaka P Madungu, Jacques B O Emina, Kikhela P D Nzita, Francesco P Cappuccio.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although there are inequalities in child health and survival in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), the influence of distal determinants such as geographic location on children's nutritional status is still unclear. We investigate the impact of geographic location on child nutritional status by mapping the residual net effect of malnutrition while accounting for important risk factors.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21518428 PMCID: PMC3111378 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-261
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Figure 1Histogram, kernel density of stunting (left) and mean standardized Z-score for stunting by child's age (right)
Distribution of stunted* children by selected variables
| Selected variables | Stunting: N = 3663 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Male | 836(46.1) | 979(53.9) | 0.008 |
| Female | 771(41.7) | 1077(58.3) | |
| 0 years | 185(23.1) | 616(76.9) | < 0.001 |
| 1 year | 367(46.5) | 423(53.5) | |
| 2 years | 353(48.5) | 375(51.5) | |
| 3 years | 333(49.4) | 341(50.6) | |
| 4 years | 369(55.1) | 301(44.9) | |
| Male | 1329(43.4) | 1736(56.6) | 0.16 |
| Female | 278(46.5) | 320(53.5) | |
| Urban | 551(37.2) | 929(62.8) | < 0.001 |
| Rural | 1056(48.4) | 1127(51.6) | |
| Hospital | 1094(41.8) | 1526(58.2) | < 0.001 |
| Other | 479(49.1) | 496(50.9) | |
| Married or living together | 1459(43.8) | 1873(56.2) | 0.74 |
| Single, divorced, widow... | 148(44.7) | 183(55.3) | |
| None | 429(49.8) | 433(50.2) | < 0.001 |
| Primary | 766(47.0) | 864(53.0) | |
| Secondary and high | 412(35.2) | 759(64.8) | |
| < 24 months | 1005(43.5) | 1305(56.5) | 0.56 |
| > 24 months | 602(44.5) | 751(55.5) | |
| Poorest | 402(49.8) | 405(50.2) | < 0.001 |
| Poorer | 340(48) | 369(52.0) | |
| Middle | 347(45.5) | 416(54.5) | |
| Richer | 350(43.9) | 448(56.1) | |
| Richest | 168(28.7) | 418(71.3) | |
| Small (< 6 members) | 581(44.8) | 716(55.2) | 0.65 |
| Medium (6-10 members) | 860(43.5) | 1115(56.5) | |
| Large (> 10 members) | 166(42.5) | 225(57.5) | |
| Kinshasa | 57(16.4) | 290(83.6) | < 0.001 |
| Bas-Congo | 91(40.3) | 135(59.7) | |
| Bandundu | 140(42.4) | 190(57.6) | |
| Equateur | 108(36.7) | 186(63.3) | |
| Orientale | 88(35.3) | 161(64.7) | |
| Nord Kivu | 134(45.0) | 164(55.0) | |
| Maniema | 117(39.1) | 182(60.9) | |
| Sud Kivu | 130(46.1) | 152(53.9) | |
| Katanga | 142(44.4) | 178(55.6) | |
| Kasai-Oriental | 128(42.0) | 177(58.0) | |
| Kasai-Occidental | 137(46.1) | 160(53.9) | |
| Mother's BMI*** | 21.5 (3.3) | 21.9 (3.6) | 0.007 |
* Data are presented as N and percentage.
**P-value for bivariate test (p-value at 0.05 levels)
***BMI is expressed as mean and standard deviation.
Provincial posterior mean for fixed effect parameters of malnourished children in DRC (DHS-2007)
| Selected variables | adjusted | |
|---|---|---|
| mean | [2.5% - 97.5% quintiles] | |
| 0.50 | 0.31; 0.71 | |
| Male | -0.12* | [-0.18; -0.06] |
| Female | 0 | reference |
| Male | -0.02 | [-0.12; 0.71] |
| Female | 0 | reference |
| Urban | 0 | reference |
| Rural | -0.11* | [-0.20; -0.01] |
| Married or living together | 0 | reference |
| Single, divorced, widow... | -0.08 | [-0.19; 0.03] |
| None | -0.12* | [-0.23; -0.01] |
| Primary | -0.14 | [-0.23; -0.06] |
| Secondary and high | 0 | reference |
| None | -0.08 | [-0.21; 0.05] |
| Primary | -0.08 | [-0.16; 0.002] |
| Secondary and high | 0 | reference |
| Less than 2 | 0.07 | [-0.002; 0.15] |
| More than 2 | 0 | Reference |
| Poorest | -0.28* | [-0.44; -0.12] |
| Poorer | -0.28* | [-0.44; -0.14] |
| Middle | -0.27* | [-0.42; -0.13] |
| Richer | -0.30* | [-0.42; -0.18] |
| Richest | 0 | Reference |
* A significant p-value for multivariate tests (p-value at 0.05 levels)
Model: adjusted model by controlling these variables: sex of child, place of residence, wealth index, mother education, province, household size...
Figure 2Non-linear effects of and child's age (left) and mother's body mass index (right) on stunting. Shown are posterior mean of stunting within the 80% and 95% credible interval
Figure 3Total residual spatial effect of stunting (left) and posterior probabilities (right) of stunting for the full model